The Supreme Court has the power to make and change policies that affect the lives of all Americans. However, many judges
and scholars support the idea of judicial restraint, a philosophy that judges should play a minimal role in policymaking.
They believe that judges should simply decide cases and leave the duty of policymaking to the legislature. Others, who feel
the Court should make bold policy decisions and possibly even break new constitutional ground, support judicial activism.
These people believe the Supreme Court should correct policy errors that contribute or lead to social and political injustice.
Those who believe that judicial activism is necessary often point to the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). They claim that state legislatures and Congress have been too slow to create policies that prohibit discrimination and segregation. They argue that without the activism of the Court, it would have taken the nation much longer to emerge from segregation. Proponents of activism also point to the protection of other civil rights. They argue that without the Court advocating for the accused, that the poor, the illiterate, and the minorities would be falsely imprisoned.
Opponents to activism argue that the Supreme Court has no constitutional basis for legislating. They argue that
judges possess no special background or qualities that make them experts in the areas of social, political, or economic reform.
Moreover, they stress that because judges are appointed, not elected by the people, they are not directly accountable to the
people.
Historically, Supreme Courts that lean toward the exercise of judicial restraint tend to avoid becoming involved with controversies. To avoid deciding overly political cases, the Court has developed the doctrine of political question. The doctrine is cited when the Court feels that an issue should be left entirely to another branch of government. A restrained court uses the doctrine of political question frequently.